Is the "pick up artist" movement an inherently good or bad thing?

Getting back to the question posed by the o.p., the “Pick-Up Artist Movement” is not only a complete marketing fabrication which takes old ideas and wraps them in some new terminology that largely seems derived from mid-level marketing, including the italicized, underlined, and bolded fonts to emphasize “power words” to offer some special meaning but actually are semantically null. The basic theory of all of the PUA methods can be distilled to a few simple maxims: act like a powerful and attractive man (alpha male); draw positive attention to yourself by distinguishing characteristics or behavior (peacocking); dole out complements and attention sparingly to whet a woman’s interest (withholding); offer up mild challenges or insults to make a woman become engaged in proving herself (negging); and make yourself accessible but not available (distancing). Curiously, these same principles can be seen in any field of activity in which men engage in attracting women, from tango to screwball comedies with Cary Grant.

I find myself in agreement with Argent Towers that such behavior is not ingrained but learned, but I think that the PUA “movement” is very poorly postured or constructed to teach any aspect of this other than the broad strokes of making the initial approach, and then most typically to women who have emotional insecurities that are readily exploited. To a modest degree of shame I admit to having used some of the methods espoused (which, despite the exorbitant prices charged by self-proclaimed experts, are available for free to anyone with a little effort in research), and they do indeed provide a basis for opening and engaging with women. They fail, however, at providing any deeper or more substantial basis in developing the necessary emotional bonding. After some study and some initial fumbling application I found it almost trivial to open up a conversation and to “get digits” with at least fair odds, but I have consistently failed to get past an actual first date, owing to a fundamental incompetence in engaging with a woman on anything but an sterile, intellectual level.

There is a wide gulf between the unregulated “training” offered by the PUA “community” and any kind of systematic or professional coaching by the psychiatric field, the essential assumption being that one will natively pick up the means and modes of flirtation by example and observation. I don’t see the PUA “community” (which, as detailed in Neil Strauss’ The Game, consists largely of guys with a significant level of social dysfunction who have managed to overcome their deficits in one particular area via some peculiar conversational gymnastics but are in most other ways poorly adept at any kind of mature interaction) as being able to provide the kind of actual guidance to overcome whatever deficiencies have led them to lack in the field of dating and romantic relations. And it does, perhaps as a side effect, engage in certain behaviors or semantics that at least appear to be misogynistic, or at least, derisive and ultimately not productive to mature emotional relationships.

Stranger

I don’t think most of the guys who use these methods are interested in the emotional bonding. I think they’re interested in learning how to play the field, typically after a frustrating adolescence and young adulthood of dry spells or outright involuntary celibacy.

They are not after “dating” and “romantic relations.” They are after sex. S.E.X.

Bully for them, I say. Why go through all of the rituals of dating and “romance” when you could get straight to the sex?

Now, after they have done this for a while, and are ready to settle down, then they can focus on developing long term relationships and emotional bonding. Maybe the PUA movement can’t help them with that; maybe that’s something they need to figure out on their own. OK. But up until that point, if they just want to have fun, they should go for it.

Also: I’m seeing a lot of statements in this thread saying things like “the pickup artist movement is misogynistic” or “it’s based on the idea of hurting women’s feelings” or “pickupartists are this or that.” That strikes me as a very broad brush. You do realize - I hope you realize - that there is not one single school of “game.” There are many different individuals out there all with their own ideas about what works best. So I think if you are going to say that something is one way or another, you ought to identify a specific PUA’s website or whatever that you think is that way, rather than saying it about the entire concept of game.

Because sex in and of itself is a merely mechanical act, transitorily enjoyable, but of no lasting benefit. And from a personal standpoint, I’ve found anonymous or impulsive sex to be distinctly unsatisfying, as there is too much reservation and reluctance for it to be as enjoyable as sex under intimate or truly romantic contexts.

But I’m mostly speaking from a dearth of experience; it is clear that whatever I want or expect from sex, dating, or relationships is dramatically at odds from what most women anticipate or desire. I just found the guidance offered by self-proclaimed pick up artists to be generally obvious, substantially limited, and ultimately unsatisfying.

Stranger

Let’s be honest here. This is, like, vaginal empathy you’re talking about, right?

Could you explain to me what the distinction is between unempathetic wouldn’t-piss-on-you-extinguisher-wise superior bitches and women who won’t have sex with the guy in question?

Wanna-be PUAs are like wanna-be anything; they’re not going to do well in any endeavor. But expert PUAs can do more than just pick up women - they can be good diplomats and people persons all around.

PUA guys want a woman, any woman, and they think all women are crazy people, and they flirt with every single woman in the house. Gotcha.

Obviously you don’t know much about the PUA community. Fortunately I have a member of this group as a salesman for my company; and I know for a fact that PUAs are not all like that. You might find that among the n00bs, but moderately skilled and expert PUAs go for better quality women, they know the crazy women from the sane ones, and they don’t scattershot. Most importantly good PUAs don’t have a set algorithm; they know how to adapt.

That said, considering what my PUA employee has taught my staff as he parlayed his pickup skills into sales skills, PUA is a poorly thought-out term that, on its face, does inspire fear and loathing and misconceptions. Plus I am sure there are a number of foolish low-quality PUAs out there that are the kind of loser that you talk about here. But they’re not all PUAs.

But this newb PUA behavior is exactly what makes all PUAs look so horrible. :smack:

That was obviously more inflammatory a choice of words than I’d intended. I wasn’t thinking about any revenge implications.

Ah yes, silence someone’s opinion by tagging it a “low-male status” opinion. How typical.

Oh, no no no. We cannot have that, sir. It’s much better to generalize about PUAs than to actually pick out a PUA community in specific. Given the sheer number of PUA groups out there it should be scary easy to find one that fits the evil stereotype. Find one with a bunch of n00bs and highlight them as the example of all PUAs.

Some forms of generalizing are good; others, not so good. It all depends on who is more politically correct.

BTW does it not strike you as funny that statistically speaking it’s a low likelihood that a woman will walk up to a guy and strike up a conversation? Yet we’ve got our panties in a knot over PUA’s.

Striking up a conversation is scary, folks. Before you piss on the PUAs try actually talking to a guy instead of waiting for him to come to you. At least you’ll never be referred to as “a loser female”. Guys have more class than that.

Well you are doing something wrong. And taking that attitude into a sexual encounter can’t make you an attractive partner really, can it? “Let’s get into a merely mechanical act, hey baby.”

I have, at the time, been totally involved in any sex I have ever had, whether it turned out to be a one night stand or the early days of a long relationship. In fact I can fondly remember a few times where one night stands never even made it to genital sex.

It’s all good fun.

I am ambivalent about this stuff.

A few years ago, after 18 years in monogamous relationships, I found myself back on the ‘market’ with absolutely no idea what to do, since I’d never actually been on a ‘date’ in my life. So I read some of the PUA literature.

First, I’ll say that the language used I found disturbing: “flakes” (women who’ve changed their mind), “a two-set” (meaning two women) - I mean, seriously. Some of the advice is frankly insane, too - “peacocking”* or pretending to be a mindreader/palmist, for example. Furthermore, many of the participants in the websites left me horrified with their misogynistic stereotyping and worrying lack of comprehension of the humanity of women.

But… not all of the advice is misogynistic. Some of it can be quite respectful. More importantly, I did take away a few great pieces of advice that stood me in good stead to attract and settle into the long-term relationship in which I now find myself: be fun to be around - exibit confidence and humour rather than wistfulness and serious intensity; be much more forthright in one’s exhibited intentions than I’d ever thought I could get away with, rather than making friends with someone I fancied, without revealing that I was attracted to them until it was too late.

I didn’t read this stuff to get laid - though that was occasionally a side-effect, occasionally with people I would consider about ten times out of my league - I read it because I felt like I was a washed up 40-something who had been given my attitude to interactions with women by radical 1980s feminists, and had never had to learn how to flirt due to serial monogamy.

Ultimately, it helped me get what I was looking for: a committed, loving relationship.

So to the OP, I’d say it’s neither inherently bad nor good, but many of its adherents tend towards the bad.

*Though I will say that last year I went to a Baroque party wearing a basque and a top hat, and I have never had so much flirtatious female attention in my life.

**I wasn’t looking to be the guy who walks into a bar and walks out with someone 30 minutes later; I don’t ever go to or enjoy nightclubs; and though the literature gave me the confidence to ask her on a weekend date, it took me until the second night even to dare to plant a peck on the forehead of my now-girlfriend - because when it really mattered to me, I didn’t want to curse things by acting like a dick.

Well, maybe it works, if you say so. But it seems like a terrible idea overall.

From your posts, I get that you do a lot to improve your apparence while attempting to appear dumb. I’m sure there are tons of men who like well groomed giggling idiots, but is that really the kind of men you want to attract? If so, more power to you, I guess…

Forget about it. Already discussed.

This horseshit is from a douche hoping to make money from hopeless cases who are desperate for instruction, any kind of instruction, on how to ‘score hot chicks’. I know a few beautiful, intelligent young women who have long been aware of the bizarre lengths a so-called pickup artist will go to. Hey, players: they’re laughing their asses off at you. (Though they might play along just for the fun of it.) Word…Might work on the young and naive, which would be good for the guy and possibly bad for the girl.

It’s funny, but just the past weekend I had an experience around this sort of thing.

I was at a Meetup group thing. There were two women I thought were quite attractive. So I started chatting one up, and I’m convinced she was adopting even sven’s strategy; she was educated with two degrees, a biology teacher, and was giggling and acting like an airhead. I suppose it’s possible I had happened to meet a curiously intelligent airhead, but it seems unlikely; she was probably dumbing it down.

So that killed my interest. She seemed to like me, but it’s hard to be interested in someone acting like a dimwit.

The other lady was not dumbing it down. She seemed smart. She was less educated, but acted like she was confident in her brains and sounded like she had something goin’ on upstairs. So we’re going out on a date. I liked her. Talking with her was interesting.

I don’t get the “Dumbing it down” thing and don’t know any intelligent guys who would like it, either. I’ve seen sven’s picture and she’s an attractive woman, so I find the strategy baffling, unless your plan is to attract douchebags.

This has been said over and over again in this thread and I have responded to it over and over again. If it’s just a matter of money, why are there so many blogs discussing game strategies FOR FREE? Could somebody please explain this? Does it say anywhere on Roissy’s site that he expects guys to pay him for his advice? Does it charge a subscription fee? No. It does not.

Why do you assume it all has to be for profit?

You realize there are blogs and forums where people share advice, right? For free? Some of them are for photography, some of them are for auto mechanics, some of them are for writers, some of them are for fishermen…and some of them are for guys aspiring to improve their skills at picking up women. Why is it so hard for people to believe that men who are good at doing this would want to openly discuss their strategies and give advice without charging money for it?

To be accurate, there is a certain aspect of profiteering in the self-described “seduction community,” with some “masters” offering their information for hundreds of dollars and selling seminars and lessons for thousands, nearly all of which comes with almost absurd claims and unverified promises of success that harkens to mid-level marketing schemes. There is also, if you’ve followed or read about the community, a lot of frankly bitchy infighting between various factions that compares favorably only to the WWE. While it is true that there is free advice available (and every bit as good as the for-pay advice) most people associate PUA or “seduction methods” with people like Mystery and Neil Strauss’ The Game.

While “Roissy” may not be charging for his information, both the content and language (as far as I can stand to read it) are taken directly from the seduction community, and quite frankly come off as being written on about an eighth grade level in both delivery and utility. What also makes it off-putting is that in the attempt to distill romantic interaction to some basic rules even unsuccessful guys can understand, it loses nuance, essentially turning romance or seduction into a hat trick. Some guy walking around a club putting the same two or three pseudo-clever moves isn’t an “Alpha Male”, or even approximately sophisticated; he’s a real-life version of Steve Urkel, playing up his schtick for as long as it will work on any woman who will stand still for it. If you play the short odds and play them often enough–which is stressed by PUAs, even as they are claiming that you can lay the make on any woman–then like a blind pig you’re certain to dig up an acorn now and again.

And therein lies the problem; men who have accepted the PUA label and status will learn their pamphlet of hat tricks and then start applying them in serial fashion as soon as they get something that works, retarding any further development as a person who might actually be interesting or have something to offer. The seduction industry, however, is ill-equipped to provide guidance in this depth, despite the few gurus who do discuss the importance of this. So you end up with a bunch of guys running around “peacocking” and “negging”, and talking in terms of the same, which is just fine for thirteen-year-old boys but seems pretty pathetic in grown men.

Honestly, the best site I’ve seen that addresses the deficiencies that many of us experienced in growing up (whether due to a lack of role models, poor access to venues appropriate for developing approach and dating behavior, obsession with technical or entertainment hobbies as a substitute for learning social aptitudes, et cetera) is this one. Note that the author reinforces that there are no quick fixes, no explicit train of steps, and no magic words or moves. It is certainly possible for most men to at least become comfortable and competent, if not exceptionally suave with some amount of training, but the seduction industry seems notoriously unsuited to provide this type of training.

Oh, and despite the belief of the o.p. that this “movement” is something novel, the seduction community (in the guise of the alt.seduction newsgroup and other venues) has been on-line nearly as long as the Internet has been publicly available, and existed even before that in the form of Ross Jefferies and his couture of followers. The only “new” thing about it is the increased general public awareness from appearing on shows like Dr. Phil or Dateline.

Stranger

That’s not what Roissy is advocating. Here is something directly from his blog which I think addresses this issue:

Well, it’s the first thing I’ve read by him and wow. “To live as a seducer in every facet of life.” I suppose people need goals, even if they are hilariously shallow ones.

Notice how he said “sexual and otherwise.” Substitute “a persuasive, convincing, charming operator” and it makes a lot more sense.

:: bookmarks site ::